Questioning the Death Penalty and the “Safe California Act”

I have been in discussion about the Safe California Act with my friend Jarvis Masters for the last two months or so.  As you may know, Jarvis has been on California’s Death Row for more than 22 years, convicted of a crime for which he is demonstrably innocent.  I have written about his case before, and will certainly return to it again.

He is deeply concerned about the impact of the Safe California Act, should it be passed.  Not so much about the abolition of the capital punishment in California, but about its limiting effect on the extensive appeals process and the meaning of the Act for inmates who are innocent.

It is late tonight and my time is limited, but I am including below commentary I found today by another California death row denizen, Darrell Lomax, who expresses the questions very well.  His letter was posted at <>.

More later. Take good care.

Alan Senauke


Death Sentence by Another Name

April 12, 2012

 Darrell Lomax is an innocent man who has been on death row at San Quentin State Prison in California for over 15 years. A poet, musician and activist, Darrell has been fighting for his freedom and advocating for justice. Here, he explains what’s at stake in a ballot initiative that would replace the death penalty with life without the possibility of parole sentences.

I AM responding to the proposed ballot initiative “SAFE (Savings, Accountability and Full Enforcement) California” that has garnered enough signatures to be on the November 2012 ballot for Californians to vote on.

The initiative was initially filed on August 26, 2011, by Jeanne Woodford, a retired warden of San Quentin State Prison and executive director of Death Penalty Focus, and it saddens me deeply that enough Californians have now signed petitions to qualify it for the ballot. I hope that this letter will enlighten you as to why this bill is unconstitutional and does a disservice to all innocent people, both on death row and beyond, and why it is wrong to advocate for a sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP)–which is a death sentence simply being called by another name.

I myself am a factually innocent man who has been falsely imprisoned here on California’s death row for 15 years. Aside from the loss of my physical freedom, I have also lost contact with my family and have been deserted by my old friends. As if that is not cruel enough, I have been in a long fight with the federal public defenders’ office, which has tried to work with the attorney general’s office to deny me my constitutional right to a new trial and has refused to assign me state habeas counsel, even though this is mandated by law in my appeals process.

I have sought repeatedly to gain legal assistance for my complaints and to raise issues of my innocence in court. Sadly, my case is unique only in my steadfastness to fight on to get due process, and that the facts of my innocence are glaring and obvious. There are many people on death row who have been similarly mistreated and denied their rights in the appeals process.

So imagine, if you will, how absolutely horrifying it was to read that within Jeanne Woodford’s endorsement of the SAFE California initiative, she not only seeks to end the death penalty by re-sentencing death row prisoners to LWOP (the other death penalty), but to retroactively terminate the appeal rights of current death row prisoners, like myself.

Woodford aspires to sell to the California voter a dream of ending the death penalty and saving our cash-strapped government money, when in fact she really wants to redirect the money saved from denying prisoners the right to appeal their sentence and conviction into law enforcement agencies. These agencies have a proven track record of injustice and will only further sweep all the dirt and corruption of this police state under the rug.

WITHIN THE language of the SAFE California initiative, you will find the following disturbing language that acknowledges the very problems that I have raised earlier about the state of injustice that currently exists in our capital punishment system.

The SAFE California Act Section 2, finds and declares the following:

— 1. More than 100 innocent people have been sentenced to death in this country. (The actual number of people exonerated off death row currently stands at over 135.)

— 2. Some innocent people have been executed.

— 3. Experts have concluded that California remains at risk of executing innocent people.

— 4. Innocent people are wrongfully convicted because of faulty eyewitness identification, outdated forensic science and overzealous prosecutors.

— 5. The justice system is not doing what needs to be done to protect innocent people from coming to death row.

— 6. State law protects a prosecutor even if he/she intentionally sends an innocent person to prison or death row, thus preventing accountability.

Let’s take a moment to put these admissions in proper perspective. This reflects what many of us who have been fighting for real justice have known for years: the criminal justice system in this country and state is inherently flawed, and innocent people have died and will die as a result. Prosecutors who have willingly participated in this injustice are protected, not made accountable for their abuses of power and misconduct, and this is what is meant by “equality and fairness” under the law.

This initiative does nothing to address these problems and instead seeks to limit prisoner appeals, which would actually make things worse.

Also in the SAFE California initiative is language that insists that one of its missions is to “get murderers off the streets, brought to justice and punished with full enforcement of the law.” (Sections 2 and 3.)

However, you cannot find anywhere within the entire initiative where there is any proposal for how to implement any state laws that would hold corrupt law enforcement agents or prosecutors accountable for their misconduct or for sending an innocent person to death row–the equivalent of false imprisonment and attempted murder, or actual murder, if the person was executed.

How can such facts as listed above be admitted so candidly, but then SAFE California have no means by which to make change and no means by which to hold perpetrators of this injustice accountable?

JEANNE WOODFORD appears to have adopted a “sweep it under the rug” philosophy towards the justice system and doesn’t give a damn about justice or addressing any of the serious ailments of California’s broken justice system. She has insensitively proposed as a resolution in the initiative to overlook any and all factually innocent people currently on death row by eliminating appeals, and instead simply states that eliminating the execution of innocent people is somehow justice enough.

Her mission as outlined within the “purpose and intent” section includes the following goals:

— 1. End the death penalty.

— 2. Re-sentence death row inmates to life without the possibility of parole.

— 3. Terminate all death penalty appeals.

— 4. Require every prisoner with LWOP to work to pay into a victim compensation fund as desired by the prison.

Wait! I am certain that the state and federal constitutions guarantee citizens the right to utilize the writ of habeas corpus and challenge the legality and validity of their convictions, sentences and detentions.

Currently, California law mandates that all people given a death sentence are due a post-conviction appeal. This appeal includes both direct and habeas components. The California Supreme Court is responsible for providing appellate counsel for all indigent death row prisoners. There are over 300 people on death row in California who have been here for over 10 years, myself included, who have not yet received appointment of counsel. I have been waiting over 15 years to clear my name.

The very language of this initiative admits that, statistically, there is a one-in-nine probability that people on death row right now in the state are factually innocent–which means that approximately 77 people are awaiting justice.

The SAFE California initiative is no more than a slow death for all those currently incarcerated on California’s death row–still death just by a different name. It also seeks to retroactively terminate all death row prisoners’ appeal rights, which means more innocent people will die and more injustices will be carried out. How will it be possible for the innocent to prove their innocence?

Jeanne Woodford is on a mission to not only end the death penalty by bringing in “the other death penalty”–LWOP–but also to appeal to voters by callously limiting prisoner appeals, after admitting that the justice system is flawed and that innocent people are falsely sentenced to death row.

This initiative is not about saving lives, but about keeping innocent people behind bars and limiting their rights to clear their names.

Respectfully submitted,

Darrell Lomax

P.O. Box K-27402

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974

About asenauke

Zen Buddhist priest, activist, writer, father, musician
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Questioning the Death Penalty and the “Safe California Act”

  1. Laurence Meylemans says:

    Thank you for sharing the letter of Darrell Lomax, my friend on California’s Death Row… hoping raise awareness about all prisoners wrongfully sentenced to death who struggle for proving their innocence, who didn’t have a fair trial, who are always today on death row and have right to have a due process even if the death penalty is abolished… It’s a real and important subject to reveal. Human lives are at stake, broken, stolen and Justice must know and do everything to see Justice done.

  2. The very acronym for the “SAFE” Act is bogus. The costs claimed by SAFE are exaggerated and the costs of the “SAFE” Act’s life imprisonment would be much more expensive due to life-time medical costs, the increased security required to coerce former death-row inmates to work, etc. The amount “saved” in order to help fund law enforcement is negligible and only for a short period of time. (It is nothing more than a bribe in a vain effort to obtain conservative votes.) Bottom line, the “SAFE” Act is another attempt by those who are responsible for the high costs and lack of executions to now persuade voters to abandon it. Obviously, the arguments of the proponents of the SAFE Act would disappear if the death penalty was carried forth in accordance with the law. Get the facts at

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s